Vehicle operation by persons under the influence of alcohol is a well known safety hazard in the United States and throughout the world. Thousands of deaths per year in the United States are attributable to drivers operating vehicles under the influence of alcohol. To address this problem, the state of Arizona, like most states, has established laws that criminalize operation of a vehicle and other machinery with a blood alcohol concentration (“BAC”) greater than a preset value (e.g., 0.08% BAC).
To reduce the rate of recidivism of driving under the influence, the state of Arizona and other states require the installation of devices in the vehicles and other machinery of individuals convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. Such devices, which are commonly referred to as breath alcohol ignition interlock devices (“BIID” or “IID”) and/or systems. These BIIDs have been developed to be directly connected to a vehicle's ignition system and are designed to prevent automobiles and other machinery from being operated by inebriated individuals.
IIDs may comprise semiconductor sensors, commonly referred to as a Taguchi cell, infrared absorption sensing systems, and/or fuel cells to sense and quantify the amount of alcohol in a driver's breath. Most modern IIDs use an ethanol-specific fuel cell for a sensor. See U.S. Pat. No. 4,487,055, U.S. Pat. No. 6,026,674, U.S. Pat. No. 6,167,746, and/or U.S. Pat. No. 7,204,335. A fuel cell sensor is an electrochemical device in which alcohol undergoes a chemical oxidation reaction at a catalytic electrode surface (platinum) to generate an electric current. This current is then measured and converted to an alcohol equivalent reading. Although fuel cell technology is not as accurate or reliable as infrared spectroscopy technology used in evidentiary breathalyzers, they are less expensive and specifically tailored to quantify ethyl alcohol (drinking alcohol). Among manufacturers of IIDs are Smart Start Inc., LifeSafer Interlock, SOS, Ignition Interlock Systems, Intoxalock and Monitech. A list of federally-approved IID devices is maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) in its NHTSA Conforming Products List.
Typically, in order to start a vehicle equipped with an IID, the driver must first blow into the breath analyzer installed in the vehicle or machinery. Conventional IIDs measure the alcohol content of the breath and calculate BAC readings on the alcohol content of gas present in the alveoli of the lungs by approximating, through the use of software algorithms, the alcohol content in the bloodstream. If the driver's BAC exceeds a preset limit, the vehicle's ignition is disabled and the vehicle is rendered inoperable. If the driver's BAC is below the preset limit, ignition is permitted and the vehicle may be started. Exemplary ignition interlock devices that utilize breath analyzers are described in, for example, U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,780,311, 3,824,537, 3,831,707, 4,592,443, and 4,697,666.
Unfortunately, individuals required to use IIDs have become increasingly sophisticated in attempting to trick the device to register false negatives and, in turn, to allow them to drive intoxicated. For example, individuals have been known to have a sober passenger blow into the device and/or use bogus gas samples from balloons or bicycle pumps. Accordingly, the IIDs have become increasingly sophisticated in ensuring that the person providing a breath sample is the person operating the vehicle or machinery. Routinely, IIDs will require a negative pressure (sucking), a positive pressure (blowing), a series of blowing and/or sucking by the operator, and/or retesting while operating the equipment or vehicle. Another deterrent is the Random Rolling Retest. These are random times when the operator is required to provide additional breath samples. This prevents Drinking while driving. Another reason for this is to ensure that an individual cannot have another person provide the first sample to get the car started and then drive home without that person. Most Manufactures set them from within the first 5 to 15 minutes then every 30 to 60 minutes.
Similarly, some of the more onerous IIDs require secondary testing and verification of identity by the operator. For example, along with a breath sample analysis, U.S. Pat. No. 4,158,198 discloses an IID, which incorporates an evaluation of the actual driving by way of a “steady control task” for a designated period of time; U.S. Pat. No. 4,645,939 discloses an IID, which incorporates an evaluation of reflexes using a sequence of time intervals; U.S. Pat. No. 4,723,625 discloses an IID, which incorporates an evaluation of reflexes using a series of test buttons; U.S. Pat. No. 4,738,333 discloses an IID, which incorporates an evaluation of physical tasks, to confirm identity of the driver; and U.S. Pat. No. 6,748,792 and/or United States Patent Publication No. 20070144812 discloses IIDs, which incorporate video cameras to photograph the person giving a breath sample.
Generally, the methods for detecting BAC and using ignition interlock systems to prevent automobiles and other machinery, from being operated by inebriated individuals are well known in the current art. Moreover, the current invention does not rely on any particular ignition interlock device or method for testing BAC, but instead can be universally applied to any ignition interlock data retrieved from any ignition interlock device installed on any vehicle or equipment.
While the internal hardware and the function of these IIDs are well known in the art, the software used to run, maintain, and report BAC results to the courts and government agencies is not well known. This is due to the fact that the software is typically maintained under trade secret either by the manufacturers of the IID or the companies that service the IIDs. To solve this lack of transparency into the software algorithms and computation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) developed model specifications for breath alcohol IIDs, which were passed into federal law in 1992, as published in the Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 67, Apr. 7, 1992, pp. 11774-11787. These NHTSA standards for IIDs have been adopted by most states including, but not limited to Arizona.
While these NHTSA standards for IIDs require that the IIDs operate within certain engineering tolerances, they do not require reporting of false positives, false negatives, device failures, and/or maintenance logs for the installed IID. Accordingly, there is no way for the court, MVD, or any other authorized third party to investigate the operating history of an IID and to validate the reliability of the BAC readings. Currently, the IIDs and the IID software algorithms lack transparency and do not allow for an authorized third party to verify and validate tests results.
We estimate that most common IIDs have a rate of failure of between 35 to 6% depending on the manufacture, and maintenance, and that these hardware failures are currently either being disregarded or being reported as a false positive or false negative. Thus, a method for providing a secured and transparent cached ignition interlock data from an IID showing a history of IID operation is needed and is provided herein. The penalties for BAC violations recorded by a client's IID range from monetary fines to Probation violations and prison. Clients have a real and vested interest in the accuracy and refutability of recorded violations. Because of the nature of the breath testing methodology the requirement of Random Rolling Retest causes false violations. The “Partition ration” or formula used to equate ones Breath alcohol lever with ones Blood alcohol level is to multiply the alcohol reading by 2400. That is to say multiply the reading two thousand four hundred times to achieve the blood equivalent. Because of this Breath alcohol is a significant problem. Evidentiary machines used to test BRAC require a 15 minute depravation period where the law enforcement officer is required to swear that the defendant at no time prior to the breath test burped, or regurgitated anything in their mouth, as to produce mouth alcohol and provide an invalid breath test. Many drivers eat and or drink as they are driving. Many products that do not contain as their primary ingredients may contain alcohol. Many other item produce alcohol as a byproduct as they decay or heat. An Example is that Smoothies that are available in the retail environment utilize over ripe bananas because of their high fructose levels. A known bi-product of the Fruit Ripening process is alcohol. This small amount of alcohol when multiplied by the patrician ration causes false violation. Under most current systems this leaves two options. The violation gets reported to the authorities and the defendant must try to remember what may have caused the violation. The technician who uploads the data from the handset may review the log with the individual and alter or “correct” the log and the violation real or unreal will not be reported. The second option destroys the integrity of the data and evidence as it destroys the evidence chain.
Additionally, the NHTSA standards do not require reporting of time, date, and place of detected BAC violations, nor do the NHTSA standards require that personnel responsible for monitoring the IID hard ware and software report the time, date, or place of any changes made to the IID data prior to reporting to the court, MVD or other authorized third party. Due to the lack of reporting requirements under the NHTSA standards, criminal courts have exhibited reluctance in certain cases to admit evidence excusing a reported BAC violation and/or admitting evidence of false positive test results. Thus, a method for providing a secured and transparent cached ignition interlock data from an IID, review of the IID data by IID personnel, and storing client input data to evidence a credible chain of evidentiary custody is needed and is provided herein.